Re: News about the macro archive

[Peter Simons]

Tom Howard writes:

 > What is the difference between getting the tool the check
 >
 > dnl @license AllPermissive
 >
 > and
 >
 > dnl @license
 > dnl   Copying and distribution of this file, with or without
 > dnl   modification, are permitted in any medium without
 > dnl   royalty provided the copyright notice and this notice
 > dnl   are preserved.
 >
 > ?

Look, we are running in circles. I am doing this little
Macro Archive project for _fun_, and all this debate is no
fun at all. So I am out of it.

Here is the deal: If you would like to help me with the
archive, then please modify those macros where the author
has agreed to relicense it to (a) state

  dnl @license AllPermissive

in the prelude, and to (b) have _no_ additional license
disclaimer in the m4 source code.

If that is not what you want to do, then feel free to do
something else, but please do it in a branch. Then my
formatting engine won't see it, and you have Card Blanche.


 > I don't know where the canonic version you are referring
 > to is. It's not part of the release.

The canonic versions are in CVS, for crying out loud. I
check out the m4src tree, then I run axlint over every file,
then I do "cvs diff", then I check those files that have
been modified to see what the tool wants to change; and if
it is alright, then I commit.

It's not like I haven't explained that a dozen times before.
It's not like I didn't offer you a copy of the tool so that
you could try it out yourself. It's not like you haven't
been listening because you desperately want to rewrite the
entire engine from the scratch for some unfathomable reason.
Wait, was that right?


 > I'm not asking you to throw [your software] away. It can
 > still be used as a tool for checking macros, however it's
 > not what the archive needs.

That from a guy who has subscribed to the mailing list about
a week ago. You have no idea how the archive work, you have
no idea what is going on behind the scenes, but you know
better already what "the Archive needs" than I do, and I
have only been maintaining it for six years. Hehe.

Way to go, Tom.


 > The archive needs a tool that most developers can use, so
 > they can check the macros before they submit them.

That tool does exist and it is called macro2html.cpp, or
genhtml.pl, or whatever it is called by now; and it has been
distributed for years without any observable effect on
anything. That's why I stopped distributing it. (Plus that
little sf.net thing, but that's another story.) So pardon me
if I don't believe that this tool is what the archive is
really lacking right now.

If you want to do something with it, go ahead, but please do
it in a branch.


 >> Could you please outline the steps that you think should
 >> be taken in order to further unification?
 >
 > - Implement a simple build process that just generates
 > the docs (this could be optional) and provides 'make
 > install' which just copies the m4 files (and the docs if
 > generated) into their correct location.

An Automake-based build system does exist already and is
found in CVS as well as in the recent release archives. You
can say "make install" and everything works as expected.
Once I'll come around to polishing the source code, I'll
check the other stuff into CVS and then you'll be able to
rebuild the documentation too. It's all working already.

So I guess that point has been taken care of.

Peter